Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T05:32:59.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ceraflex and Figulla atrial septal occluders: early and intermediate-term safety and efficacy study

Part of: Interventional Cardiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2022

Ming Chern Leong Open the ORCID record for Ming Chern Leong [Opens in a new window] ,
Boekhren Karyostyko Open the ORCID record for Boekhren Karyostyko [Opens in a new window] ,
Mohd Nor Hisham Ramli ,
Jason Weng Yew Tan Open the ORCID record for Jason Weng Yew Tan [Opens in a new window]  and
Mazeni Alwi
Ming Chern Leong*
Affiliation:
Paediatric & Congenital Heart Centre, Institut Jantung Negara (National Heart Institute), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Boekhren Karyostyko
Affiliation:
Paediatric & Congenital Heart Centre, Institut Jantung Negara (National Heart Institute), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Mohd Nor Hisham Ramli
Affiliation:
Paediatric & Congenital Heart Centre, Institut Jantung Negara (National Heart Institute), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Jason Weng Yew Tan
Affiliation:
Paediatric & Congenital Heart Centre, Institut Jantung Negara (National Heart Institute), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Mazeni Alwi
Affiliation:
Paediatric & Congenital Heart Centre, Institut Jantung Negara (National Heart Institute), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
*
Author for correspondence: M. C. Leong, Paediatric & Congenital Heart Centre, Institut Jantung Negara (National Heart Institute of Malaysia), 145, Jalan Tun Razak, 50400Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Tel: +603-26178470; Fax: +603 - 2694 6478. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Ceraflex septal occluder and the Figulla atrial septal defect occluder have the advantage of a pivoting mechanism and softer device architecture. This study sought to examine the safety and efficacy of these occluders compared to the Amplatzer septal occluder.

Methods:

This was a retrospective study. Between January, 2013 and April, 2020, patients with at least 6 months of follow-up were included. Early and late-onset outcomes were examined.

Results:

Four hundred seven patients (range: 0.17–70.72 years; 53.1% >18 years; male: 29.2%) underwent atrial septal defect occlusion using Amplatzer septal occluder (n = 313), Ceraflex septal occluder (n = 36) and FSO (n = 58). A longer procedure time was observed in the Amplatzer septal occluder group. Early-onset complication rates in Amplatzer septal occluder, Ceraflex septal occluder and Figulla atrial septal defect occluder were 3.83%, 5.56% and 0%. Ten (2.46%) patients developed delayed complications (2.56%, 0% and 1.72% in the Amplatzer septal occluder, Ceraflex septal occluder and Figulla atrial septal defect occluder groups). Device erosion rate was not different between groups. The occlusion rates were comparable among all the devices.

Conclusion:

There is no significant difference in safety and efficacies between the novel atrial septal defect occluding devices compared to Amplatzer septal occluder.

Keywords

Atrial septal defectatrial septal occluderpivoting mechanismsafety and efficacy
Type
Original Article
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 32 , Issue 10 , October 2022 , pp. 1621 - 1627
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

King, TD, Mills, NL. Nonoperative closure of atrial septal defects. Surgery 1974; 75: 383–388.Google ScholarPubMed
Jung, SY, Choi, JY. Transcatheter closure of atrial septal defect: principles and available devices. J Thorac Dis 2018; 10: S2909–S2922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sahin, DA, Baspmar, O, Sulu, A, Karshgil, T, Kul, S. A comparison of the in vivo neoendothelialization and wound healing processes of three atrial septal defect occluders used during childhood in a nonrandomized prospective trial. Anatol J Cardiol 2017; 18: 229–234.Google Scholar
Kim, AY, Jung, SY, Chang, JY, Jung, JW, Choi, JY. Early to mid-term follow-up outcomes of percutaneous closure of atrial septal defects using recent generation devices: a single-center experience. Korean Circ J 2019; 49: e19.Google ScholarPubMed
Astarcioglu, MA, Kalcik, M, Sen, T, et al. Ceraflex versus Amplatzer occluder for secundum atrial septal defect closure. Multicenter clinical experience. Herz 2015; 40: 146–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leong, MC, Kandavello, G, Husin, A, Perumal, D, Kaur Khelae, S. Left atrial appendage and atrial septal occlusion in elderly patients with atrial septal defect and atrial fibrillation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2020; 43: 1252–1257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alwi, M, Leong, MC. Catheter-based interventions on intracardiac shunts. In: Da Cruz, E, Ivy, D, Jagger, J (eds). Pediatric and Congenital Cardiology, Cardiac Surgery and Intensive Care. Springer, London, 2014: 1127–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pac, A, Polat, TB, Cetin, I, Oflaz, MB, Balli, S. Figulla ASD occluder versus Amplatzer Septal Occluder: a comparative study on validation of a novel device for percutaneous closure of atrial septal defects. J Interv Cardiol 2009; 22: 489–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godart, F, Houeijeh, A, Recher, M, et al. Transcatheter closure of atrial septal defect with the Figulla(®) ASD Occluder: a comparative study with the Amplatzer(®) Septal Occluder. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2015; 108: 57–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taggart, NW, Dearani, JA, Hagler, DJ. Late erosion of an Amplatzer septal occluder device 6 years after placement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142: 221–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, WT, Parmar, J, Rajathurai, T. Very late erosion of Amplatzer septal occluder device presenting as pericardial pain and effusion 8 years after placement. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 82: E592–4.Google ScholarPubMed
Amin, Z, Hijazi, ZM, Bass, JL, Cheatham, JP, Hellenbrand, WE, Kleinman, CS. Erosion of Amplatzer septal occluder device after closure of secundum atrial septal defect: review of registry of complications and recommendations to minimize future risk. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004; 63: 491–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McElhinney, DB, Quartermain, MD, Kenny, D, Alboliras, E, Amin, Z. Relative risk factors for cardiac erosion following transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects: a case-control study. Circulation 2016; 133: 1738–1746.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Takaya, Y, Akagi, T, Nakagawa, K, et al. Clinical significance of septal malalignment for transcatheter closure of atrial septal defect. J Interv Cardiol 2020; 2020: 6090612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abe, T, Tsukano, S, Tosaka, Y. Pericardial tamponade due to erosion of a Figulla Flex II device after closure of an atrial septal defect. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 94: 1003–1005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Auriau, J, Bouvaist, H, Aaberge, L, et al. Cardiac erosions after transcatheter atrial septal defect closure with the Occlutech Figulla Flex device. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 12: 1397–1399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, W, Ouyang, W, Wang, S, et al. A novel totally biodegradable device for effective atrial septal defect closure: a 2-year study in sheep. J Interv Cardiol 2018; 31: 841–848.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, YF, Xie, YM, Chen, J, et al. Initial experiences with a novel biodegradable device for percutaneous closure of atrial septal defects: from preclinical study to first-in-human experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2020; 95: 282–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sigler, M, Söderberg, B, Schmitt, B, Mellmann, A, Bernhard, J. Carag bioresorbable septal occluder (CBSO): histopathology of experimental implants. EuroIntervention 2018; 13: 1655–1661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haddad, RN, Khraiche, D, Bonnet, D, Meot, M, Malekzadeh-Milani, S. Preliminary experience with the New Amplatzer™ Trevisio™ delivery system in transcatheter atrial septal defect closures in children. Front Pediatr 2021; 9: 641742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed